Religious groups are claiming that taxpayer funding for school chaplains in public schools — a program costing hundreds of millions of dollars — is necessary to protect freedom of religion. At the same time, those groups are condemning the Safe Schools program as “indoctrination of children into the LGBTI lifestyle”.
In the 2014 horror budget, the Abbott government managed to find $245 million to fund the chaplaincy program out to the end of the 2017-18 financial year. Tuesday’s budget could result in the Turnnbull government axing the controversial program — which Abbott had made even more controversial by removing the option for schools to hire secular workers in the place of chaplains.
In a submission to a parliamentary inquiry on freedom of religion, the National Schools Chaplaincy Association — which represents the employers of chaplains in about 2000 government schools in Australia — said that freedom of religion in Australia required government policies to nurture and support the promotion of religion. The group argued that removing the teaching of religion in schools was a form of “secularism” and a threat to freedom of religion:
“The exclusion of religious conviction or belief from educational settings, including by not allowing space for the exploration of belief as part of a student’s development at school, is a very serious threat to the human right to the freedom of religion and belief. For the human right to exist, Australian children and young people must feel supported and safe to explore religion and belief, including in a school environment. “
The group called for the Commonwealth and state governments to continue to fund the program “as a program of religious chaplaincy in government schools, which supports the human right to freedom of religion and belief”.
[Your guide to groups that think marriage equality would bring on the apocalypse]
The group claimed that school chaplains were not “coercive” in their push of religion in schools and in yet another submission, Outreach Ministries complained that Christians were no longer given a “privileged entitlement” to push their form of religious education in schools. They claim an environment of censorship of their religion, and that chaplains receiving funding under the Commonwealth program were advised by ACCESS in Victoria and YouthCARE in WA to not teach anything religious to students:
“Why? For fear of losing the funding. That is, they can’t say anything religious, can’t invite religious presenters in to the school.”
Outreach claimed that there was “an increasingly strident pro secular-humanist bias within the education system”, and they believed that treating a lack of belief as the neutral position in public debate was inaccurate. They argued that the increasing view that religious belief was a private affair and one not to be discussed publicly was an attack on freedom of religion.
Many of the submissions to the inquiry from religious organisations claim concern about the advancement of LGBTI and women’s rights trampling over their “religious freedom” to discriminate against LGBTI people by firing them, or freedom to target women outside abortion clinics, and many raise concerns about the Safe Schools program. The Family Council of Western Australia claims that Safe Schools is “nothing less than a device for the total indoctrination of children into the LGBTIQ lifestyle”.
“[Safe Schools] pressures students into accepting homosexuality and transgenderism as normal; and, that as a result traditional, cultural, moral and religious beliefs on sexuality are unacceptable.”
The Australian Family Association claimed the program is “a transparent indoctrination of the students into the LGBTIQ lifestyle”. FamilyVoice Australia argued that religious exemptions in anti-discrimination law needed to be extended to other law, including the Disability Discrimination Act:
“Priests and ministers exercise important positions of authority within a Church. For very good reasons a religion may not wish to engage a person who has a mental illness and displays disturbed behaviour. Such behaviour would adversely affect a Church service, which is sacred in nature. “
The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference claimed there would be more pressure on faith-based schools to adopt Safe Schools if marriage equality became law. The Australian Human Rights Commission in its submission stated that there was a “complexity of balancing competing rights” between religious rights and the rights of LGBTI people to be protected from discrimination.
“On one hand, some argue that anti-discrimination laws do not adequately protect LGBTI people from discrimination, in part due to the exemptions provided to religious bodies. Others consider that these exemptions are too narrow and do not provide sufficient scope for religious organisations to manifest their beliefs and act in a way that is consistent with their purpose, unjustifiably limiting freedom of religion.”
Why on earth should taxpayer funds be diverted to teaching the fantasies of religious crackpots like, for example, the catholic church. There is no factual basis for any of the nonsense they peddle. If they feel they need to damage children regularly in this way, let them do it on their own time with their own money, extorted from their parishioners, instead of taxpayers’ money obtained by fraud.
It used to be called Sunday School. Let it remain there.
That school chaplain programme is just another example of what you get when mentally, morally and ethically challenged politicians are allowed to decide policy in the teeth of established political practice (that would be separation of church and state).
I wouldn’t let a priest or a pastor of any denomination anywhere near any child after reading rape Among the Lamingtons in The Monthly.
That any religion should be subject to government funding is somewhat bizarre when viewed against the Governments apparent willingness to disregard science and press ahead with policies that cause damage not only to the environment but also hamper investment in emerging technologies.
So the Government will fund a program that is entirely beyond any scientific proof or rational thought, but withdraw funds from programs are based entirely on scientific proof and logic.
So I suppose the tooth fairy will be funded ahead of any programs aimed at improving the dental health of indigenous Australians.
Tommo
What is missing from this debate is the concept that no one can be genuinely free to do something unless they are also free not to do it, and vice versa. That is, freedom of religion or belief necessarily and logically also includes the freedom NOT to have or express a religion or belief. It includes the freedom to hold secular or atheistic beliefs. Or no belief at all. What also needs to be considered is that freedom of religion comprises both the right to hold and/or change a belief or lack of belief (which is unlimited, having no impact on others), and the right to manifest or express one’s beliefs (which, because of potential impact upon others, must be balanced against the rights of others). From a human rights point of view, no right takes precedence over others and when anyone calls for a right to be protected (by government through legislation), the degree of protection afforded needs to be balanced against the rights of others (not to be discriminated against, as women are in many religions; not to receive religious education if they don’t want it, as in this case, etc). ‘Religious’ practices often involve breaches of human rights of the group’s adherents and calls to restrict the human rights of persons outside their group. Discriminatory treatment of women, LGBTQI persons and religious and ethnic minorities are obvious examples. There can be no true freedom of religion without respect for the freedoms and human rights of others. Jimmy Carter has recently written about leaving the Southern Baptist Church he has been in for over 60 years because their principles continue to discriminate against women in so many areas.
It is clear that here neither the federal government, nor those teaching compulsory religious education, have respected childrens’ rights to a non-religious education. The government has protected compulsory expressions of favoured traditional religions within public schools at the expense of the freedom of the students involved. The legislation also privileges the followers of some religions over others, discriminating between ‘religions’ or beliefs. The government has not balanced the competing rights appropriately.
Hear hear!
I don’t want funding for chaplains in public schools, but also don’t agree with tarnishing chaplains as somehow (by implication) encouraging anti LGBTI, anti womens reproductive rights etc issues. Somehow I doubt they wander around the schools randomly preaching to those who don’t want to listen. I’d be much more concerned that “religious” schools receiving govt money are teaching according to an approved syllabus. I’m certain my three kids got a balanced education at Catholic Schools. Not so confident about other religious schools however.